Several legal scholars have already weighed in on the question of whether Donald Trump is disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment. Now Vivek Ramaswamy has, too. But despite technically being filed on the Supreme Court docket, the GOP candidate’s amicus brief is more of a political document than a legal one.
Through whatever lens one views the brief, it’s not persuasive. That’s evident from the very first line of the argument section, which claims:
There is an obvious reason why President Trump is the only presidential candidate in American history to face a challenge to his qualifications under Section 3: Democrats fear the potential consequences of Trump’s election in 2024 more than any party has ever feared the victory of an opposing candidate.
No. The reason Trump is the only presidential candidate in American history to face such a challenge is because he’s the only presidential candidate whose actions have triggered this legal process. It’s true that Democrats (and others) fear what will happen if Trump is re-elected. But that’s partly because of the insurrectionist behavior that led to the disqualification challenge in the first place. Not mentioned is the fact that the Colorado voters who brought the case against Trump’s eligibility are Republicans or unaffiliated.
Likewise, the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Ramaswamy wants the justices to reverse is a poor example for his claim that “disqualifying a prominent presidential candidate of the opposing party is a fast-track to national notoriety.” Putting aside the statement’s legal irrelevance, what notoriety have the Colorado Supreme Court justices gained? They’ve been subjected to threats for doing their jobs. Plus, the state high court justices in Colorado, all of whom were appointed by Democrats, split 4-3 in the case, further undercutting the notion of a partisan process.
To be sure, the Ramaswamy brief tries its hand at some law, too — with similarly unimpressive results. He embraces the absurd notion that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to presidents, which would allow the disqualification of lower-level insurrectionists but permit one to lead the nation.
It’s unclear how the justices will rule in this case, which is set for argument next month. But it would be surprising if Ramaswamy’s brief is much help in deciding this pivotal constitutional issue ahead of the 2024 election. Of course, the justices might not be the intended audience, anyway.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
